Can Trump Deal with North Korea and China?

For years, Americans have misunderstood the nuclear threat from North Korea, and overestimated the importance of bilateral trade deficits with China. Now, these two issues are intersecting, and yet Donald Trump is threatening to erect new trade barriers against China just when he needs its help to rein in the Kim regime.

CAMBRIDGE – For years, Americans have misunderstood the nuclear threat from North Korea, misjudging how to address it. They have also misunderstood the bilateral trade deficits with China, overestimating their importance. Today, as President Donald Trump threatens new trade barriers against China, on which the United States must depend to help rein in an increasingly dangerous North Korea, these two issues have become closely connected. Yet US officials seem no closer to figuring them out.

The stakes obviously are much higher regarding North Korea, with US-South Korean joint military exercises this week aggravating already-high tensions. If the US and North Korea do get into a military confrontation, there is a real risk that nuclear weapons will be used. Even a conventional war would likely be catastrophic.

Trade is relevant to the North Korean nuclear challenge, because strict economic sanctions by China – potentially including a halt in oil supplies – are probably the world’s best bet for stopping the North’s nuclear program (in exchange for certain security guarantees from the US). Trump may well understand this. But he apparently believes that he can use US trade with China as a bargaining chip to secure its help in dealing with North Korea. This is the wrong approach.

Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, previously served as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. He is a research associate at the US National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, the official US arbiter of recession and recovery.

Yes, China is in the way of our engaging North Korea militarily. We are willing to let South Koreans die, if it removes a threat to the American mainland, which is harsh but true. The real problem is China, and it has always been China.

Let's not forget that if we execute a preemptive strike on North Korea, the Chinese are required by the mutual defense treaty of 1961 to come to their aid. So, as Americans, we are in the uncomfortable position of waiting for North Korea to attack us first, which will keep China out of the fight. We need to keep China on the sidelines of this mess or it just gets bigger and messier.

We were very comfortable with Kim's threat to lob 4 missiles at the nearby waters of Guam, because we would have then fabricated an attack on one of our bases there, as if we had been attacked (Remember the Maine), which would have given us leeway to respond with missiles of our own. However, some wiser powers advised Kim that we might do just that, and so he backed off.

Now, we're stuck again. We still need him to attack us before we can strike back. And Kim Jung-un is cagey, never giving us the opportunity to "stage" a North Korean attack on our allies, our military assets or the US itself. Now, armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated weapons on the planet, we're stranded on the diplomatic field, waiting for him to fire just one more shot our way.

But, seriously, do we really want that? That's a mess that will require decades to clean up with consequent costs that no one wants to bear, including North Koreans flooding across the borders in every direction. Besides, China requires a North Korean buffer, so we can't unify Korea under Seoul after wiping out North Korea.

But we can decapitate their entire leadership with the Air Force's Rod of God, which can be passed off as a meteor strike. After that, we deal with more reasonable North Koreans who abandon their nuclear and missile programs in order to join the community of nations, even in a Cold Peace.

The Korean war, when it took place, was a proxy war between China/Russia on one side and freshly emerging from WWII, America on the other. The US gave it all it had, bombed the country to destruction while killing between 10%-15% of the population.
NK is still traumatised by what took place but has now armed itself to the point where attacking it is no longer a winnable option.
So for what possible reason would either Russia or China disapprove of a nuclear armed North Korea?
The nuclear weapons are an ironclad guarantee that NK will not be overrun and not be bombed by western forces. It guarantees stability in the region until north and south find the will to come to some sort of negotiated settlement. As long as the situation persists, there will not be a reason for China to take a stand against the US, while the collapse of the NK regime followed by SK/US invasion forces on the border with China, will lead to unpredictable consequences in regards to Chinese policies towards the west.
China's wealth depends on it's trade with the west. This trade depends on stability and peace, so in the case of NK it depends on maintaining the status quo. It's really not that hard to figure out.
America's problem is not that it's not tough enough on NK or that it misjudges trade with China. America's problem is that it is not honest about it's own history or about it's own intentions. Asian countries understand that history better and they fear not North Korea but what America might do to destabilise the region. There is only one country in the world that believes that war is good for it's economy- and that is the United States.

While this article is about Trump's unpredictable efforts toward China and North Korea I am surprised there is no mention of the Japan factor. That is, the danger that a nuclear armed North Korea may incentivize Japan to go down the same path. Nobody wants Japan to go nuclear, but if that country feels sufficiently threatened, it will. With a large peaceful nuclear power program and a sophisticated economy it could do this in very short order. China is the only country with the economic clout to bring North Korea into line and stop this madness. It seems a small price to stop Japan going down that path. The point is, China shouldn't be doing this to appease Trump and America, but to serve its own national interest.

From the point of view of coming to a negotiated agreement, the severe flaws of the Trump administration is further exacerbated the example of Libya. In that case, under the most enlightened leadership the US has had in some time, we still fell short in terms of *trustworthiness* in the context of negotiating peace and normalized relations in exchange for the other country (or their sponsors, if any) giving up some amount of leverage that was available to them.

The negotiations must proceed without the benefit of trust. That means small steps. Reduce the rate of [provocative action by side A] in exchange for reducing the rate of [provocative action by side B]. Lets say, back off from once a month to once every 2 months. And so forth.

That's the best that can be done. The world will keep turning. War can happen only if we take the huffing and puffing seriously.

JEFFREY FRANKEL's statement that, " From China’s perspective, a nuclear-armed North Korea is undesirable", is absolutely ludicrous, considering that the Chinese not only assisted North Korea, but that the Chinese also planned this outcome, starting at least 10 or more years ago. Unlike the West which desires a more immediate reward, the Chinese are known for being able to plan 10 to 20 years ahead as part of their social planning. The North Korean outcome would have been too obvious for the Chinese not to have expected the Nuclear threats made by North Korean leaders, and yet they assisted with monetary and currency clearances and diversions of shipments of nuclear and missile materials to North Korea. Professor Frankel is too trusting of China's motives. They are the Machiavellians of the orient. If we were to raise tariffs they would simply reduce prices and ship through Vietnam or Thailand or Taiwan.

Professor Frankel indicated that the US policy of persuading Chia to cut oil supplies with the view of starving the HK economy is a non-starter, for the USA is not willing to get into a fight with Russian Federation whose RED LINE is preventing major disruption of NK Economy.
It behooves the Professor to study Chinese and Russian policy statement in connection with any policy issue the Professor cares to discuss, to forestall causing more tensions rather then the objectect of reducing the same.
And finally, the Professor should review recent history of USA promises and breaking of the same promises within days, to see that China, Russia and indeed NK for her national interest can not take any US statement to be valid for any length of time.

Trump is still being supported by about 40 % of U.S. electoral population, and (equally important) he has no viable adversaries. So, for the time being, his position is solid - because he has been loyal to his supporters.

And Trump's supporters want revenge from globalization, its elites, its immigrants, within America itself. Valid revenge may be to dislodge their globalized world, be it China or NAFTA trade, or any other form of international commitment. That is poison the them.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.